| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | King v Camden Council [2024] NSWPIC 642 |
| APPLICANT: | Robyn King |
| RESPONDENT: | Camden Council |
| MEMBER: | Brett Batchelor |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 18 November 2024 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses as a result of psychological injury; injury not in issue; respondent relied on defences under section 11A in respect of provision of employment benefits, transfer and discipline; the applicant transferred to working part-time under a trial Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA) which she believed would be made permanent; after two extensions thereof, the applicant was directed to return to full-time employment; the applicant submitted that the respondent could not rely on any of the three section 11A categories; Held – the respondent could rely on these categories; the respondent put in issue factual matters alleged by the applicant in respect of the actions of its employees in communicating cessation of the FWA to the applicant; detailed examination of the evidence in respect of the disputed factual matters; the respondent’s actions with respect to transfer and discipline were reasonable; award for the respondent. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment with the respondent deemed to have occurred on 11 April 2022. 2. The injury was caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent with respect to transfer and discipline. 3. Award for the respondent. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
Robyn King (the applicant/Ms King) seeks weekly benefits and compensation for medical expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) as a result of psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment as an Injury Management and Wellbeing Officer with Camden Council (the respondent/the Council), deemed to have occurred on 11 April 2022.
Ms King describes her injury as having been sustained as a result of interpersonal conflict with employees including Shelby Lee, now Shelby Eady and hereinafter referred to as Shelby, and Samantha Sharkey (Ms Sharkey).
The applicant commenced employment with the respondent on 21 November 2011 as a Workers Compensation and Work Health and Safety Officer. In 2020 her role was changed to Injury Management and Wellbeing Officer.
In June 2020 Ms King, at her request, commenced working under a Flexible Work Arrangement (FWA), pursuant to which she worked three days a week. This was approved by a director Tim Butler, as a transition to retirement, for a trial arrangement for six months. There was no written agreement in relation to the arrangement. Mr Butler left the Council in late 2020. Under this FWA the applicant took the two days that she was not working from her long service leave and annual leave.
In January 2021 Tina Hay was working in the position of Acting Chief People Officer and wrote to the applicant on 25 January 2021 advising her of the Council’s agreement to continue…
Continue reading King v Camden Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- King v Camden Council [2024] NSWPIC 642
- Case
- [2024] NSWPIC 642
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the Council could rely on the section 11A defences. This required a detailed examination of the evidence concerning the actions of the Council's employees in communicating the cessation of the FWA to the applicant. The court considered whether the Council acted reasonably in respect of the defences raised under section 11A. This involved assessing the factual matters alleged by the applicant, particularly those concerning the transfer and discipline issues.
The court found that the Council could rely on the section 11A defences. The respondent’s actions with respect to transfer and discipline were deemed reasonable. The court examined the evidence and concluded that the Council acted appropriately in managing the applicant’s employment and the FWA. As a result, the court awarded the case in favour of the respondent.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
The applicant mentions this clause in her evidence, submitting that the Council had an obligation to consult with her regarding the change in the FWA in accordance with cl 41 of the former Local Government (State) Award. The respondent submits that it does not apply, and sets out that clause in its Submissions in Reply, as follows:“41. Workplace ChangeDefinitions(a) In this clause:‘Significant effects’ include:termination of employment; ormajor changes in the composition, operation or size of the employer's workforce or in the skills required; orthe loss of or reduction in, job or promotion opportunities or job tenure; or the alteration of hours of work; orthe need for employees to be retrained or transferred to other work or locations; or job restructuring.Provided that where the Award makes provision for the alteration of any of the matters referred to above such an alteration shall be deemed not to have significant effect.” (Emphasis added.) The respondent submits that the former award made provision for the alteration of the applicant’s hours of work under the FWA in cl 23, so any proposed further alteration of the hours of work of the applicant pursuant to a proposed cessation of the FWA, is deemed not to have ‘significant effects’ and cl 41 therefore did not apply. Thus in this case the asserted cl 41 obligation of the employer to consult with the applicant about the proposed cessation of the FWA did not apply. I accept this submission. In any event, in my view the whole of what happened in respect of the applicant’s FWA from about January 2021 onwards, and in particular from October 2021 until April 2022 when Ms King ceased working for the respondent, needs to be considered in determining whether the Council acted reasonably in respect of the defences raised by it pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act to the applicant’s claim. The USU escalated the applicant’s grievance to the IRC at a point in time of which the applicant is not sure. It was eventually resolved before the IRC at a teleconference hearing on 5 May 2022, when the applicant entered into an agreement which involved the cessation of her employment and a monetary payout. The terms of the agreement are confidential. The applicant says that on 21 February 2022 she saw a general practitioner, Dr Muzammel, reporting that she was suffering stress and anxiety due to what was happening at work. She was given a medical certificate for time off work from 22 to 25 February 2022. The applicant gives evidence about her being removed from a particular workers compensation matter she was managing for the Council from January 2022 involving Vera Suli. The applicant says that she only found about the decision to remove her from the case by Ms Suli in late February 2022, and was subsequently informed by Ms Sharkey via email on about 1 March 2022 that she would have no further involvement in managing Ms Suli’s claim, and that it would be managed to completion by Lorraine Chesnee, the person working the two days a week that the applicant was not working. The applicant says that no reason was given why she was taken off Ms Suli’s claim, that this she was upset and caused her to have another “emotional meltdown.”